Iowa trial judge, Robert Hanson, misrepresented responsible procreation and failed to acknowledge the nature of marriage which is the combination of sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation.
At least he noticed the significance of responsible procreation as a legitimate governmental interest.
That would be progress of a sort when it comes to SSM argumentation. However, the problem is, the Judge absurdly claimed that the same-sex combo could further the state interest in this central aspect of marriage.
His judicial opinion did not accurately represent the 800 lb gorilla in his courtroom even though it placed a big hairy arm around him. His reasoning was specious.
The expert testimony that Judge Hanson conveniently deemed to be inadmissable probably would have helped him form an accurate representation of responsible procreation. Maybe then he could have recognized and appreciated that the entire same-sex category (homosexual or not) is incapable of providing the contingency for responsible procreaton.
See pages 50 to 58 in Judge Hanson's opinion in favor of the merger of SSM with marriage recognition:
Varnum v. Brien [PDF].
* * *
Stay tuned for more on responsible procreation in a series of posts by F. Rottles.
Also I'll post more about Iowa.
This ruling comes at a significant time as we approach the November elections and it will galvanize pro-marriage voters to work for the election of pro-marriage candidates. Mitt Romney has quickly spoken out, recognizing clearly what this radical move by Judge Hanson means:
ReplyDelete"The ruling in Iowa ... is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act.”
Romney added: "This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
The leading Democrats all oppose same-sex “marriage” but most favor the confusion of a state by state patchwork quilt approach.
John McCain referred to the ruling as "a loss for the traditional family,” and stated, "I have always supported the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, . . . The ruling of the court only reinforces my belief that we must have a president who is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the bench."
(http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/31/ap4074168.html)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion of this Judge is another example of "capture the flag".
ReplyDeleteIt is also yet another glaring example of flubdub and substitutition.
It is like the SSMers who abused the term, interfertility.
This pattern is not unsurprising given that SSM argumentation seeks to merge nonmarriage with marriage recognition and thus explode the meaning of marriage.
The Judge's opinion reads like an SSM pamphlet, including the studious application of blankwalling, hence he did not recognize the 800 lb Gorilla sitting next to him on the bench.
A consequence is that rather than acknowledge the prospect of harm, which SSM argumentation would embed into marriage recognition, the Judge claimed it "furthered" responsible procreation. The threat to society is in discarding the core of marriage under the guise of "extending" marriage recognition.
Adoption is certainly a related and meritorious institution, but adoption is not procreation so it does not further responsible procreation.
Third party procreation (upon which any one-sexed combo would rely for the purpose of creating children) is extramarital procreation even when married couples use. It does not further responsible procreation. In fact, when used by a lone individual, or by two or more persons of the same sex, it explicitly serves to segregate motherhood from fatherhood. And if it is used by a threesome -- for example, a mother, her female partner, and a male friend-of-the-couple (aka a father), it pushes the door open for poly-unions. This is not furtherance of responsible procreation.
So SSMers take the words "responsible" and "procreation" and proceed to act as if they have reinvented the wheel. But without actually inventing the wheel. They merely invent a new form of confusion.
The SSM pose is simply false and manifests as a direct attack on the nature of marriage and, by extension, on those who'd promote marriage for what it is rather than for what SSM is not.
One should just say what you mean when you mean what you say.
Instead SSM argumentation encourages Judges like Hanson to read sameness into diversity.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf readers are not sure what responsible procreation means, please hold-off filling-in the gap, as Judge Hanson did, with speculation or with the SSM argumentation's latest substitution.
ReplyDeleteMore will be written on Opine about this subject. We already have many posts that discuss responsible procreation.
Under each post you will see a shaded green area. There you will find tags that will take you to lists of Opine posts about that particular subject.
For example, click on Responsible Procreation or click on Sex Integration.
F. Rottles is writing a series of posts on this subject so please stay tuned.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSee my comment above: please hold-off filling-in the gap, as Judge Hanson did, with speculation ...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSee the Opine post, The Prospect of Harm, which was already mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteSee the comment section under the Opine post, "On the need to define marriage", and notice the inclusion of the liberty to procreate -- within the argument for the defence of the nature of marriage.
See the tag, John Howard, in the Labels list.
See the post "Complaint Department" for On Lawn's administration of the comment policy.
John, you could post on your blog, link to it here, and invite further discussion of your complaint. You are welcome to bring to our attention the new content of posts that you make on your blog and elsewhere.
Further concerns should be discussed off-line through email.
[Note: This is a meta-comment. It is administrative and it will be deleted as part of the relaxed moderation process here at Opine.]